Laws of passion: the Shahbag protests

The second verdict handed down by Bangladesh's war crimes tribunal is life imprisonment. Now a death sentence is being demanded in mass protests supported by the ruling regime, with calls for violence that extend into Bangladeshi society. Yet the guilty verdict itself may be a far cry from sound.

Thousands have gathered across Bangladesh in protest across several
cities. Images of the freedom movements of the Middle East are evoked, but this
is no freedom movement. The protesters have gathered to speak out against the
second verdict handed down by the Bangladesh International War Crimes Tribunal
(ICT). Abdul Quader Molla, a senior leader of the opposition party,
Jamaat-i-Islami, was found guilty by the ICT of crimes against humanity and
sentenced to life imprisonment. To the protestors, who began their movement in
the Shahbag crossing of the capital Dhaka, this is not enough. They want Molla
and the other accused hanged.

Molla denies having committed the crimes and repeated his denial
upon receiving the sentence. His party has strongly condemned the verdict as
politically motivated while his lawyers
have pledged to appeal to the high court. Among the concerns
raised by the defence are that the prosecution only presented 12 witnesses,
many of whom were ‘hearsay’ witnesses and beneficiaries of the ruling Awami
League led regime that has championed this tribunal. More tellingly, the
defence themselves were permitted to only present six witnesses, half those
permitted the prosecution, in this high profile and much belated war crimes case.
Ultimately, the lawyers observed that the trial dealt with deeply emotional
issues and the judges had permitted their emotions to cloud their judgement.

The concerns are glaring. Nonetheless, the government’s junior Law
Minister, Qamrul Islam, has expressed dissatisfaction at the ‘leniency’ of the
verdict. Islam has, incredibly, confirmed the government is now
preparing to make changes to the ICT Act to allow the prosecution to appeal
the verdict of life imprisonment and seek the higher sentence of execution.
Under current laws the prosecution can only appeal acquittals. The Law Commission of Bangladesh has already presented
draft amendments to the Bangladesh Law Ministry.

There has been much international criticism for the ICT, and not
without reason. The most recent, and most high profile, includes a statement
issued by the United Nations in which Christof Heyns, the United Nations Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, “expressed alarm” at the
fair trial and due process concerns raised, stating “Capital punishment may be
imposed only following proceedings that give all possible safeguards to ensure
a fair trial and due process, at least equal to those stipulated in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a
State party.”

Not long before the UN statement, Human
Rights Watch, in its latest of a series of press releases expressing concerns
over the ICT and as part of its World Report 2013, condemned the current running of the tribunal.
The report commented on “glaring violations of fair trial standards” in the
trials of the ICT, observing that “serious flaws in the law and rules of
procedure governing these trials have gone unaddressed, despite proposals from
the US government and many international experts.”

Perhaps the most interesting international
report on the ICT, however, came from The Economist. In an analysis, the British
based news magazine revealed it had been given a cache of leaked material that
exposed ‘a disturbing pattern’ of collusion between
the presiding judge of the tribunal, Nizamul Haque Nasim, an international
lawyer based in Brussels, Ziauddin Ahmed, and the prosecution team.
Furthermore, it became clear from the leaks that the government was applying
serious pressure on the ICT to come up with quick verdicts.

For their part, the opposition party,
Jamaat-i-Islami, and its youth wing, Chatra Shibir, have been protesting the
partial and political nature of the ICT, under which all their senior most
leaders stand accused. They have, however, been specific in asserting that they will stand by any new court that is
established on fair grounds and following due process. These protests, while
large and countrywide, have not enjoyed the same widespread and rose-tinted
coverage by the pro-regime media as Shahbag has. Instead,
this opposition has been sharply and consistently condemned as a ‘conspiracy’
to undermine the tribunal, with complete disregard for the opposition party’s
expressed acceptance of a tribunal that respects due process and fulfills
international standards. Meanwhile, the police, in coalition with the ruling
regime’s youth, the Bangladesh Chatra League, have administered a brutal
crackdown on opposition rallies, leaving many dead and arresting hundreds. Recent
protests resulted in four deaths of Jamaat and Shibir members,
including a boy of class 10.

The protests in Shahbag and elsewhere in the country, are an
interesting addition to the mix. These protestors, unlike the opposition, have
faced no police violence; indeed the police have been helping them along by
diverting traffic (meanwhile, police have prevented another opposition party, the
Bangladesh Nationalist Party, from holding a prescheduled rally on Saturday).
This is perhaps unsurprising, given the protesters of Shahbag are repeating the
very demands members of the ruling regime have been making throughout the ICT
process. While Shahbag may claim to be apolitical, it is evident their
concordance with the nation’s ruling politicians is doing much to assist the
cause. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself has openly
expressed solidarity with the protest and committed herself to fulfilling
the protestors’ demands, stating in parliament “Every word of their oath is
justified. We will do whatever necessary to implement their oath. It is our
commitment” and even whimsically
commenting “My soul is also with them, I wish I could join
them at Shahbagh.”

It has also proven almost impossible to reason with the protestors, many
of whom aggressively denounce any critique of their movement as “pro-Pakistani”,
“pro-war criminal”, “unpatriotic” and accuse critics of being “razakars” (“collaborators”
– a derogatory term for those deemed to have assisted the Pakistan army in
1971), “neo-razakars” or “children of war criminals” among any number of other tasteless
epithets. That blindly angry individuals of this kind are likely to descend
upon this article too is quite expected.

The protest has gathered people of varying ages with a common cause.
Photos are appearing of protestors wearing “we want razakars hanged” bandannas
across their forehead, while Shahbag slogans are being broadcast across the media: “We have only
one demand, hang the Razakars”, “Hanging, we want hanging!”, “Make batons, beat
Shibir”, “Throw shoes at the face of Razakars”, “catch Shibir and slaughter
them”. Meanwhile, there have been placards proclaiming
“I want to murder Quader Molla and spend two months in prison”. Even young
children have been photographed with “we want the razakars
hanged” painted in blood red across their torso.

The terms of this protest are truly disturbing in their open advocacy
of violence and capital punishment, particularly in their inclusion of children
in this violent and vindictive approach. While Bangladesh was freed as a nation
in 1971, it is clear that it is yet to be freed from the aggressive hate of the
dominant liberation narrative. Much as the Bengali media may try to claim it,
this rally is no Tahrir Square, where the noble cause of protest was freedom
from oppressive dictatorship and the establishment of democracy. This rally is
one of hate and revenge. As one astute blogger
notes, this is not Shahbag Square, this is Shahbag More with more people than
usual. Some protestors have even created the slogan, “we’ve got the razakars,
what about their children?” Little is left to be said.

The Shahbag protestors have also been calling for the banning of
Jamaat-i-Islami, taking pledges to boycott many of Jamaat’s institutions,
including hospitals and banks. That a democratic party – the only one to be
internally democratic in structure in a nation of dynastic political parties –
should be banned in the name of secular democracy is an incredible claim. As a
registered political party that observes due political processes, there is
little claim to ban the party if democracy is to be respected. The democratic
way to oppose would be to use the ballot – if you don’t like them, don’t vote
for them. Yet this fact appears to elude the self-proclaimed secular democrats
of this protest, and a more autocratic law of governance seems to paradoxically
reign.

Aristotle states in his Politics
that “the law is reason unaffected by desire” (in a more popular variant: “the
law is reason free from passion”). The Shahbag protest only confirms that
Bangladesh is singularly ill-suited to hold a tribunal over the terrible war
crimes of 1971. As the glaringly controversial and compromised tribunal
continues to conduct problematic trials, the people on the ground of Shahbag are
evidently more interested in revenge fed by deep vitriolic passions than true
justice conducted by a rational and balanced court of law. For this reason,
among the great many others, it is imperative that the Bangladesh ICT be
transferred abroad, to be conducted under the jurisdiction of the United Nations,
where heated passions of either party in this conflict cannot compromise a
court in which lives – both those murdered in 1971 and those behind bars today
– are in the balance.

About the author

Mahin Khan resides in England and is an avid follower of British and Bangladeshi politics.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Security for the future: in search of a new vision

What does ‘security’ mean to you? The Ammerdown Invitation seeks your participation in a new civic conversation about national security in the UK and beyond. Its authors offer an analysis of the shortcomings of current approaches and propose a different vision of the future. Please use the invitation summary document for seminars, workshops and public meetings, and share the responses and insights that emerge.